Character skill vs Player Skill: A Graphical Relationship

[Yuna]

Wow, this isn't totally biased at all! Yeah! Peach has close to the potential of Snake and Meta Knight (in fact, you claim she has better potential than Snake)!

Get off it. Peach's potential is highly limited. At the highest level of skill, she's not very viable. If she is, prove it by actually winning tournaments with her, not relying on Azen doing OK-ish with her 'til he runs into certain match-ups.

Peach has very limited resources at her disposal. In order for her to win over Snake, you have to assume that the Peach player is in possession of Azen-level mindgames while the snake is pretty shoddy. It doesn't work that way. Someone of Azen's level playing Snake will always perform vastly better than someone of the same level wielding Peach because while Peach can do some pretty neat stuff, Snake is just that much better than her at pretty much everything.

This is quite pathetic. For over a year now, the Peach fanboys (and it's almost always the Peach fanboys) have been clamoring to any kind of "evidence" that Peach is viable, going as far as to tout her, oh, two minor tournament wins a few months back in the face of one bazillion major loses.

Why do you lie like this? Are you trying to justify your character choice? Are you trying to snare less knowledgeable players into choosing Peach thinking she's on par with Snake and Meta Knight? Are you a masochist and trying to make yourself look like less good players when you win as Peach since she's, apparently, not very far off from MK in terms of potential? Why? Why? Why?

Edrees, I expected better from you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5DEnaS6alc

Freak accidents where the MK is obviously ****ty/doing a ****ty job =/= matter. MK played a totally ****ty game. Just look at that last death. Or how he kept, you know, downsmashing at point blank range with CF blatantly shielding, just asking for a shieldgrab.

Yes, MK can lose to CF is CF does almost everything right and MK does almost everything wrong. It doesn't mean that match-up isn't still a 80-20 and CF will most probably lose.

Yes I did overestimate Peach. Because I don't have time to write the equation of a line that perfectly depicts where I think she would go, its guess and check..lol. This was all guesswork, like I said none of this is accurate, its the CONCEPT that I wanted to illustrate.

Backtracking I see. Too bad you didn't say any of this in the OP. You just said that it wasn't totally accurate, i.e. "I might be a bit off".

Nowhere does it say "This is just to illustrate a concept". In fact, you specifically say it's to illustrate your opinion of Peach, implying it is your opinion she's close to MK-level in terms of potentiall.

I'm not saying a perfectly played low tier can't beat a sucky MK, I just didn't refine the lines to be that accurate. The idea is there for fun. I think it fosters better discussion of tiers.

What, delusion? At the highest level of play, low tiers will suffer more. Because at lower levels, ****ty players who have little experience with match-ups (or good players having a really bad day/match/set) lose to characters against whom they have 80-20 match-ups.

At higher levels, people are less prone to make huge mistakes. Thus, someone having an 80-20 match-up is less likely to see their opponent make 29 huge mistakes which they can take advantage of, all while still suffering from the fact that if they make even one, that might be the match-breaker because the match-up is just that steep.

So your concept is horribly flawed to begin with.

For example if a tier list is based only on both players playing perfectly at the highest level, do we ignore any tournament results of players playing at in between skill levels? If we include those tournament results where players are not playing perfectly, then we admit a lot of player skill is factored into the tier list. Just saying, it's a thought.

No one's arguing perfect play. We're arguing highest levels of human play currently exhibited at major tournaments.

I.e., not a match where an MK dies because they messed up their glide and as a result of that lose the match (even if the MK is being wielded by M2K or whatever).

 

[ExCeL 52]

Yea, Excel, while it's good you have some character pride - but don't go overboard.

She's high tier material, not god.

But.. But.. *sob* I just love her sooo much Meno =( *cries running away from computer*

 

[Zook]

Yuna pretty much said everything I was going to say, and more.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Peach is overated by Peach boards, she's high-mid tier, high tier if you want to push it.

Get off it. Peach's potential is highly limited. At the highest level of skill, she's not very viable. If she is, prove it by actually winning tournaments with her, not relying on Azen doing OK-ish with her 'til he runs into certain match-ups.

Which match-ups?

 

[ExCeL 52]

Peach is overated by Peach boards, she's high-mid tier, high tier if you want to push it.



Which match-ups?

Im telling you Yuna has got something up his but and he just wants to release all of his anger on Peach.. Cause he cant handle her mad skills and he spams Upsmash on wifi jk I dont even know.

But uhh Peach has problems with Snake and Meta-knight and Zeldas...

But its not as bad as he is saying.

 

[illinialex24]

Yuna just completely ripped this thread to pieces. Good day sirs.

 

[Yuna]

But its not as bad as he is saying.

All I'm saying is that she's not very viable. Are you saying I'm wrong on this count?

 

[ExCeL 52]

All I'm saying is that she's not very viable. Are you saying I'm wrong on this count?

No Im not.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Im telling you Yuna has got something up his but and he just wants to release all of his anger on Peach.. Cause he cant handle her mad skills and he spams Upsmash on wifi jk I dont even know.

But uhh Peach has problems with Snake and Meta-knight and Zeldas...

But its not as bad as he is saying.

Standing as a middle man reading the Peach boards vs Yuna debates I have to say the Peach boards were overhyping.

I main Peach, I recognize her strengths and weaknesses. Peach boards were saying some real BS about her, at least a few people were.

The reason I'm questioning Yuna is due to the fact I want to know the match-ups that are keeping Peach out of high play. 4-6's won't keep her out of high play if Guilty Gear taught me anything.

 

[Yuna]

No Im not.

Then please explain how Peach "[is] not as bad as [I am] saying".

The reason I'm questioning Yuna is due to the fact I want to know the match-ups that are keeping Peach out of high play. 4-6's won't keep her out of high play if Guilty Gear taught me anything.

Peach suffers from "generically problematic match-ups", such as Meta Knight, Snake and, unless I'm mistaken, King DeDeDe. She's also bad against Marth and her match-up against Wario, despite the quasi-infinite should be a bust. In short, she just does really badly against the SS, SS and As (and more).

 

[OverLade]

I was thinking about this the other day. Fascinating concept, and great chart. I thought it was pretty accurate.

 

[ExCeL 52]

Then please explain how Peach "[is] not as bad as [I am] saying".


Peach suffers from "generically problematic match-ups", such as Meta Knight, Snake and, unless I'm mistaken, King DeDeDe. She's also bad against Marth and her match-up against Wario, despite the quasi-infinite should be a bust. In short, she just does really badly against the SS, SS and As (and more).

Ok .. Ill back you up with Meta Knight. Snake yes too but she can win if she plays a very defensive game. No to DeDeDe .. I mean yeah he is a really strong character and Peach is really light but .. Peach's air game > DeDeDe. Ill back you up with Marth because his range is far wider than Peach's but I can handle Marths perfectly fine. Wario ... No.

And yeah .. Ill back up my statement.. wanna get on brawl and play me Yuna?

 

[Napilopez]

I'm in agreement with Edrees here, in the basic idea of where I think he was trying to go with this. Mostly because I have thought of things in a similar way. He may have not presented his idea in the best way, but I think that's just semantics more than anything.

Why do you lie like this? Are you trying to justify your character choice? Are you trying to snare less knowledgeable players into choosing Peach thinking she's on par with Snake and Meta Knight? Are you a masochist and trying to make yourself look like less good players when you win as Peach since she's, apparently, not very far off from MK in terms of potential? Why? Why? Why?

Edrees, I expected better from you.

I don't think he is trying to justify his character choice or even trying so much to preach for his character. Although he may have presented the concept through Peach, I do not think that was Edreese's main point when he created this thread. This doesn't only affect peach, he used Peach as an example because thats the character he mains. He did admit to exaggerating anyways.

Freak accidents where the MK is obviously ****ty/doing a ****ty job =/= matter. MK played a totally ****ty game. Just look at that last death. Or how he kept, you know, downsmashing at point blank range with CF blatantly shielding, just asking for a shieldgrab.

Yes, MK can lose to CF is CF does almost everything right and MK does almost everything wrong. It doesn't mean that match-up isn't still a 80-20 and CF will most probably lose.

Agreed, individual matches mean little.

Backtracking I see. Too bad you didn't say any of this in the OP. You just said that it wasn't totally accurate, i.e. "I might be a bit off".

Nowhere does it say "This is just to illustrate a concept". In fact, you specifically say it's to illustrate your opinion of Peach, implying it is your opinion she's close to MK-level in terms of potentiall.

Again, he did admit that he overestimated peach. But thats not the point of this thread. I don't think how well Peach specifically performs at differing levels of skills is what Edrees was trying to explain with this post. After all, it is titled "Character Skill vs Player Skill". He says:

"I've decided I want to explore the relationship on character skill vs player skill - how much player skill does someone need to overcome tiers, for example?"

And then he states he provides peach's example as his own opinion. But its just an example to illustrate the concept, even if flawed.

Let me elaborate

What, delusion? At the highest level of play, low tiers will suffer more. Because at lower levels, ****ty players who have little experience with match-ups (or good players having a really bad day/match/set) lose to characters against whom they have 80-20 match-ups.

At higher levels, people are less prone to make huge mistakes. Thus, someone having an 80-20 match-up is less likely to see their opponent make 29 huge mistakes which they can take advantage of, all while still suffering from the fact that if they make even one, that might be the match-breaker because the match-up is just that steep.

So your concept is horribly flawed to begin with.

I think you are not grasping the main concept of what is trying to argue. Whether because he didn't present it clearly enough or you misinterpreted it, I dont know. Or I may be wrong, but I don't think so =P

Anyways, what I believe he is arguing is that characters play differently at different levels of skill(duh). The point is, you cannot assume that match-ups for characters will be the same at all levels of skills. That at the highest levels of play certain match-ups play out differently than they do at low levels of skill.

Now, I know you realize this, but the logic you are arguing has to do with higher level players making less mistakes and the effects of experience and so on and so forth. While that's all fine and well, there is also the issue to be considered of how characters are played at different skill levels. Not only in terms of error percentages, but also in terms of gameplay styles, techniques and technical skill available to the character. I would use a melee example I think might work to explain, but since I'm not knowledgeable enough about melee to hold up an argument, I'll try to refrain from that.

Lets say two kids just started playing smash for the first time. John plays Ike, and Matt plays diddy. Are we in agreement that Diddy is the better character at high level play? I would think so.

Now John and Matt just started playing smash, and they are equally adept. All they know how to do is move around and use the C-stick for smashes, with some few other moves thrown in between. This is an extremely basic level of skill. From observing uber noobs, and from logic, I think it's pretty clear that John's Ike would be the usual victor over Matt's Diddy, and in matches against other people in general. This is because at this skill level, the Diddy player simply isn't good enough to tap into his character's potential and realize that his character is better than Ike. You could say that Ike is "top tier" at the most basic levels of skill for this game. If all you know if to spam cstick, then who better to go with than Ike?

Now the two friends decide they want to become pros, and start watching videos on youtube and visiting smashboards. They're now playing at high levels. All of a sudden, John's Ike isn't so successful anymore, while Matt's Diddy is winning tourneys, despite the fact that the two players are of equal technical skill.

If you had plotted this data onto a chart like Edreese did, Diddy would start below Ike, and surpass him as you move from left to write, from low skill to high. This, I think, is the concept Edrees was getting at, albeitt to a lower extent.

Lets ignore peach for a second. Edrees is trying to show that the relationship between a players skill level and a character's performance ability is not linear. The growth rate of a character's performance ability, if you will, changes depending on a player's skill level. This change in growth rate also varies from character to character. Certain limitations become less noticeable with top level play, and moreso for some characters than others. I believe some characters begin to reach a slight "plateau" once the player has reached a certain skill level, while at this very same skill level other characters may still have much more to develop. I also think this can be applied to some extent to both individual match-ups and a character's overall goodness.

*awaits rebuttal*

EDIT: Just to be clear, I don't have a concrete opinion on just how good peach really is, but rather am simply stating what I think was Edreese's main argument, and why i am in agreement with that. Not necessarily how Peach alone performs.

-----------------------------------------

As for my own option on the subject matter and characters that may "overcome tiers" with skill, well I think so about Sonic . A basic level Sonic is even suckier than Sonic is in general, but as you get better you find that several match-ups and things are made way better past a certain skill level. A Good Sonic may do poorly against a good Diddy, but an amazing Sonic may go even with an Amazing Diddy. And bla bla.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Peach suffers from "generically problematic match-ups", such as Meta Knight, Snake and, unless I'm mistaken, King DeDeDe. She's also bad against Marth and her match-up against Wario, despite the quasi-infinite should be a bust. In short, she just does really badly against the SS, SS and As (and more).

So basically she suffers the bad match-up most mid tier and lowers suffer from.

DeDeDe and Wario however are actually better for Peach compared to the Snake and MK match-ups.

 

[ExCeL 52]

So basically she suffers the bad match-up most mid tier and lowers suffer from.

DeDeDe and Wario however are actually better for Peach compared to the Snake and MK match-ups.

I just explained that to him I dont know what Yuna is smoking.

 

[Panix]

chill guys. how did this turn into a peach debate anyway, cool concept. It would be sick if you could incorperate alot more of the individual characters on how good they get when skill is implimented. also, snake should have a high incline since someone who dosn't know any of snakes AT's will suck. and MK should have a more average incline, since even the people who don't use MK could pick him up in the matter of a week and learn everything.

 

[ExCeL 52]

chill guys. how did this turn into a peach debate anyway, cool concept. It would be sick if you could incorperate alot more of the individual characters on how good they get when skill is implimented. also, snake should have a high incline since someone who dosn't know any of snakes AT's will suck. and MK should have a more average incline, since even the people who don't use MK could pick him up in the matter of a week and learn everything.

We turned this into a Peach arguement because Yuna jumped in and started hard core ****** everything that Edreese said and all the other Peach mains.

Yeah.. I would just love to see him do this on individual characters.. even though that would take forever because you would have to be like an expert on every one.

 

[Ebonyks]

This thread is silly. The entire concept of a tier list is representing characters at their metagame. Let's look at metaknight for example. One of the reasons he his so high on the tier list is that when played properly, he is almost impossible to punish. A newbie may be making countless mistakes resulting in large openings to punish. Therefore, the metagame of metaknight is limited by the skill of the player. A character like ike has large openings. Even a great ike player will perform attacks that when reacted to appropriately, will result in large openings. Because of that, the weaknesses of ike would prevent players from being able to use him on a high level of play.

I think Napilopez has the right idea. Different characters are simply easier to play than others, while some require more skill to properly handle. Depending on the specific character, their progression is different. Peach and the ice climbers, for example, are very difficult to play well. Until someone attains a high level of skill with them, they will have difficulties performing at the same level as other characters in similar tier levels.

So, going back to the idea of this graph, suppose someone made one for all 35 characters. The high end of the chart would be identical to the current tier list. It's only at the lower levels of play which characters would be in a different order. To use the classic example, ike would be much more powerful than many characters above him on the tier list when played by inexperienced smashers.

 

[illinialex24]

We turned this into a Peach arguement because Yuna jumped in and started hard core ****** everything that Edreese said and all the other Peach mains.

Yeah.. I would just love to see him do this on individual characters.. even though that would take forever because you would have to be like an expert on every one.

No it became a Peach debate because the maker of this thread foolishly (and Yuna destroyed him rightfully for this) thought that Peach when played perfectly is the second best character in the game. Thats not even close to true. My bets would be as a literally perfect player, Olimar would be the best because of his insane camping and hitboxes. He is the perfect camper. However, Peach is not even close to there, and when she is played amazingly, she is not as good as a Snake at the same level. Not even close. Yuna deserved to attack the thread maker.

 

[ExCeL 52]

This thread is silly. The entire concept of a tier list is representing characters at their metagame. Let's look at metaknight for example. One of the reasons he his so high on the tier list is that when played properly, he is almost impossible to punish. A newbie may be making countless mistakes resulting in large openings to punish. Therefore, the metagame of metaknight is limited by the skill of the player. A character like ike has large openings. Even a great ike player will perform attacks that when reacted to appropriately, will result in large openings. Because of that, the weaknesses of ike would prevent players from being able to use him on a high level of play.

I think Napilopez has the right idea. Different characters are simply easier to play than others, while some require more skill to properly handle. Depending on the specific character, their progression is different. Peach and the ice climbers, for example, are very difficult to play well. Until someone attains a high level of skill with them, they will have difficulties performing at the same level as other characters in similar tier levels.

So, going back to the idea of this graph, suppose someone made one for all 35 characters. The high end of the chart would be identical to the current tier list. It's only at the lower levels of play which characters would be in a different order. To use the classic example, ike would be much more powerful than many characters above him on the tier list when played by inexperienced smashers.

I totally agree with you and Napilopez of some of what you just said.
But Edreese said on "Average" for low tier/ middle tier / high tier.
When you two bring in Ike and Diddy they are totally different examples and actually like a counter to this concept to there whole group.

 

[salaboB]

From all the discussions on MK vs Snake, it goes kinda bad Snake > bad MK (Snake's initial dominance), decent MK > decent Snake (People saying MK was a Snake counter and MK's rise to dominance), good Snake > good MK (Back again towards Snake, a bit), great Snake = great MK (M2K beating Snakes still), and perfect MK > perfect Snake (Theory).

 

[Yuna]

Lots and lots of stuff.

Allow me to quote myself here:
"Backtracking I see. Too bad you didn't say any of this in the OP. You just said that it wasn't totally accurate, i.e. "I might be a bit off".

Nowhere [does it say 'This is just to illustrate a concept'. In fact, you specifically say it's to illustrate your opinion of Peach, implying it is your opinion she's close to MK-level in terms of potentiall."

His OP is missing vital information, making it looks as if he's trying to present a somewhat factual argument instead of just a concept. Even though he did specify it's just his opinion, people will think, since he's a moderator and renowned Peach player, that his opinion is somewhat repudiated with facts, that Peach does indeed stand a pretty darn good chance.

So basically she suffers the bad match-up most mid tier and lowers suffer from.

Yes, this is what I meant by "generically bad match-ups".

Ok .. Ill back you up with Meta Knight. Snake yes too but she can win if she plays a very defensive game.

Can she win? Yes. Are the odds in her favor? No. The odds are very much against her. At least a 70-30, IIRC. And since there's one bajillion Snakes running around, that's one bajillion 70-30s + the one bajillion + zillion MK's, + her other bad match-ups.

No to DeDeDe .. I mean yeah he is a really strong character and Peach is really light but .. Peach's air game > DeDeDe.

Pray tell, what does Peach have that outranges and outprioritizes D3's Bair and Fair (though Fair is slow)? Also, since when is DeDeDe an aerial character to begin with?! Why would D3 randomly go into the air against Peach when he does just fine camping the ground + Bairs (which are still pretty darn good against Peach) against pretty much everyone else? Also, chaingrab.

And are you saying that any character whose airgame is worse than Peach's, Peach wins against? Shouldn't that include Snake then, since his airgame is pretty **** horrible (relatively speaking)?

Ill back you up with Marth because his range is far wider than Peach's but I can handle Marths perfectly fine.

You seem to not grasp what "character viability" means. It has nothing to do with what you can do against mediocre to bad Marths who aren't very good at fighting Peach, a match-up that is very much in their favor AFAIK.

Wario ... No.

I'm sorry, would you like to elaborate on that statement? Also, since you used "Peach's air game > D3's" above as your only argument for why Peach is not at a disadvantage against D3, I'll use the "Wario's airgame >>> Peach's airgame" argument against you here.

And yeah .. Ill back up my statement.. wanna get on brawl and play me Yuna?

You again fail to grasp what character viability means. Whether or not I can play Meta Knight, Snake, Marth, Wario or King DeDeDe to such a degree I can dominate you does not matter.

What matters is which character has the advantage when you look at a match-up objectively assuming both players are playing at the current highest levels of (human) play with both players of roughly equal skill.

You doing whatever to my Marth on Wifi (Wifi) will prove zip.

I totally agree with you and Napilopez of some of what you just said.
But Edreese said on "Average" for low tier/ middle tier / high tier.
When you two bring in Ike and Diddy they are totally different examples and actually like a counter to this concept to there whole group.

The entire concept of the thread is flawed to start with.

"How much skill does a player need to overcome tiers?" - This is assuming the opposition is not of roughly equal skill level (because in such a theoretical match-up, the character with the best match-up should win), at which point nobody really cares anymore because who cares if Ness can beat Marth if the Marth player is really, really bad while the Ness player is one of the best Ness players in the world?

Also, the thread opines that at higher levels of skill, it becomes much easier for Low Tiers to win... which is pure lies. The higher you go, the harder it becomes for Low Tiers to win because Low Tiers are Low Tiers for a reason: They are bad.

At lower levels of skill, Low Tiers can do wellish or even good since at lower levels of skill, the opposition will not be very good. They might not know how to best crush sucky characters, which is why some mediocre Captain Falcon players can actually win a little here and there and the CF fanboys on Youtube cling to this as proof of how he isn't really that bad.

But the higher up you go, the more likely it will become that your opposition will know your character's weaknesses and also their character's match-up against yours, thus making it harder for your crappy character to win.

Seriously! What is up with this "theory" and you agreeing with it?! How can you, with a straight face, claim that Peach, a Low Tier, becomes better the higher up in skill the players involved are, implying that the higher up you go, players will be less good at facing her. What possible proof do you have for this ridiculous standpoint?

Let me employ math to prove my point.

Edrees's theory + Excel 2 = Elicited fanboyish cries of "Yay! Brilliant thread! Peach plays very well when you come to high levels of skill (I'm blatantly lying here or I'm delusional, I don't care)! Wai! Wai! Wai!"
Edrees' theory + Yuna + Yuna's Logic + Yuna's debating skills + Yuna's razor sharp wit, sarcasm and snark = Theory exposed as pure baloney.

Pure baloney. Pure baloney. Pure baloney. Pure baloney. Pure baloney. Pure baloney. Pure baloney.Pure baloney. Pure baloney. Pure baloney. Pure baloney. Pure baloney. Pure baloney. Pure baloney.Pure baloney. Pure baloney. Pure baloney. Pure baloney. Pure baloney. Pure baloney.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

All I know about character skill versus player skill is that Azen pwns with Lucario, and NinjaLink's Diddy is better than/equal to M2K's MK.

- Yuna, I find your sig hilarious. I know you did that in an attempt to insult da K.I.D., but the way you present the quote makes it actually sound like a truth.

 

[Yuna]

All I know about character skill versus player skill is that Azen pwns with Lucario, and NinjaLink's Diddy is better than/equal to M2K's MK.

Yes, but you see, neither Diddy Kong or Lucario are bad characters. They are both viablish. Yet not even Azen can win major tournaments as Lucario (and neither can anyone else), so Lucario isn't very viable. Diddy Kong, more viable and definitely capable of winning (better than Lucario). Neither NinjaLink or Azen are doing anything out of the ordinary with those two characters. They just happen to be taking them to their limit.

Neithe are Low Tiers.

- Yuna, I find your sig hilarious. I know you did that in an attempt to insult da K.I.D., but the way you present the quote makes it actually sound like a truth.

Ah, but if you click on the link in my sig and read through the thread, it will becomes obvious to you that is it true, that that thread was yet another thread where da K.I.D. failed to employ logic.

 

[Brinzy]

We turned this into a Peach arguement because Yuna

And once again, a Peach main has to blame someone else for their ****.

 

[ExCeL 52]

Yuna im pretty sure the Snake vs. Peach match up is 60-40 Snake's favor.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Yes, but you see, neither Diddy Kong or Lucario are bad characters. They are both viablish. Yet not even Azen can win major tournaments as Lucario (and neither can anyone else), so Lucario isn't very viable. Diddy Kong, more viable and definitely capable of winning (better than Lucario). Neither NinjaLink or Azen are doing anything out of the ordinary with those two characters. They just happen to be taking them to their limit.

Neithe are Low Tiers.


Ah, but if you click on the link in my sig and read through the thread, it will becomes obvious to you that is it true, that that thread was yet another thread where da K.I.D. failed to employ logic.

Yes, that may be true; however, it does not change the fact that you are weird.

Not only that, but if Azen can't win major tournaments with Lucario, then doesn't that mean there is only one player that can win a major tournament, M2K? After all, Azen is number 2, and his best character according to M2K is Lucario. (note: my info is a little old)

 

[Brinzy]

Not only that, but if Azen can't win major tournaments with Lucario, then doesn't that mean there is only one player that can win a major tournament, M2K?

You seem to be missing something extremely valuable from this:

Who is M2K winning with?

 

[ExCeL 52]

And once again, a Peach main has to blame someone else for their ****.

So what are you saying? Anyone's main cant state the positives about their character? All was fine until Yuna came in and started all this Peach blows donkey **** hardcore stuff.. When she really doesn't and she will probably not drop on the tier list ever.
Ok..so lets all just say everyone SUCKS except for.. umm Mk, Snake, and all of high tier.
And everyone else just give up.. theres no way your character will go any higher in the tier list. Because at tournaments you will ALWAYS get ***** by them and there will never be ANY chance of beating them at all.
Thats what Yuna is basically stating. And then he goes and says that Peach doesn't play at higher levels when she is played perfectly which lemme use his words is "Pure Baloney"
So lets all just play as Top/High tier and drop everyone else.
Because Brawl is all about winning and not having fun or finding new things about your character right?
Captain Falcon worst character Fo' Eva!1!1!!

WRONG

Because some people refuse to accept that and keep on trying.
Please correct me if im wrong but:
Wasn't almost all of high/ top tier at a lower point at once?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

You seem to be missing something extremely valuable from this:

Who is M2K winning with?

I am fully aware that M2K is winning with MK. One player is winning major tournaments with one character.

Of course, that brings M2K into the discussion (as the only authority on winning major tournaments), and he has a lot of interesting opinions about characters and matchups.

 

[Brinzy]

So what are you saying? Anyone's main cant state the positives about their character?

No. Simply do not blame one person for an altercation. You, as Peach mains, could simply stay out of it. If you jump in, fine, but you're also at fault.

All was fine until Yuna came in and started all this Peach blows donkey **** hardcore stuff.. When she really doesn't and she will probably not drop on the tier list ever.

I am unconcerned with this. Let's make it simple:

Peach is good.

Most everyone else is very good, great, or outstanding.

Ok..so lets all just say everyone SUCKS except for.. umm Mk, Snake, and all of high tier.
And everyone else just give up.. theres no way your character will go any higher in the tier list. Because at tournaments you will ALWAYS get ***** by them and there will never be ANY chance of beating them at all. Thats what Yuna is basically stating.

No, not even close.

Yuna never said that Peach would "always" get *****. Yuna stated that the odds were stacked against Peach. This is a true statement.

And then he goes and says that Peach doesn't play at higher levels when she is played perfectly which lemme use his words is "Total Baloney"

I'm going to assume that you really meant what you said and call it an incomplete thought which is missing a vital part: Peach, when played "perfectly", that being defined by how well the Peach performs and not how badly the opponent performs, can win matches. Most of the cast, when played "perfectly", does it better than Peach because they can make up for their weaknesses better than Peach can. Playing in a tournament full of "perfect" players of all kinds of characters will result in Peach not placing nearly all the time. This is because Peach does not have amazing match-ups, and in fact, her 4-6s, which are not immediate losses for her, are simply inferior to characters who can fight the same character for at least 5-5.

So lets all just play as Top/High tier and drop everyone else.
Because Brawl is all about winning and not having fun or finding new things about your character right?
Captain Falcon worst character Fo' Eva!1!1!!

WRONG

Because some people refuse to accept that and keep on trying.

Nonsensical tirade.

Please correct me if im wrong but:
Wasn't almost all of high/ top tier at a lower point at once?

Were Robot/some mid tiers at a higher point once?

I am fully aware that M2K is winning with MK. One player is winning major tournaments with one character.

Of course, that brings M2K into the discussion (as the only authority on winning major tournaments), and he has a lot of interesting opinions about characters and matchups.

Player skill does not directly translate into competence at debate. M2K's word is not God's word. Realize this and realize what you are saying.

 

[ExCeL 52]

Peach has about four 40-60 match ups.
Whatever... I quit ya'll win..

Im going to go PLAY brawl and get better.
If you would like to PLAY brawl please private message me.
Thanks bye..

 

[Brinzy]

+1 count for people who try to end something with some self-proclaimed winning aspect by saying something completely irrelevant and borderline idiotic to make themselves feel better.

 

[ExCeL 52]

+1 count for people who try to end something with some self-proclaimed winning aspect by saying something completely irrelevant and borderline idiotic to make themselves feel better.

I guess it is...
Oh and is that a yes? Would you like to play me?

 

[Brinzy]

I did not PM you, nor did I imply I wanted to play you, so therefore I do not want to play you in some competition of who is better over WiFi.

Go have fun or whatever.

 

[Yuna]

So what are you saying? Anyone's main cant state the positives about their character? All was fine until Yuna came in and started all this Peach blows donkey **** hardcore stuff..

Funny, I seem to recall only ever stating that Peach is not a viable character to win major tournaments (or possibly even minor ones) with in this thread.

When she really doesn't and she will probably not drop on the tier list ever.

I never claimed this. You read "unviable" as "pure ****" because in your fanboy eyes, any criticism against Peach is undue.

Ok..so lets all just say everyone SUCKS except for.. umm Mk, Snake, and all of high tier.

I never used the term "sucks" or anything equivalent to it in this thread.

And everyone else just give up.. theres no way your character will go any higher in the tier list. Because at tournaments you will ALWAYS get ***** by them and there will never be ANY chance of beating them at all.

And I never claimed Peach will never go further up the tierlist. I specifically stated that judging from what we know about her at this very moment, she's not a viable character.

Thats what Yuna is basically stating.

No, this is your hallucination of what I'm saying.

And then he goes and says that Peach doesn't play at higher levels when she is played perfectly which lemme use his words is "Pure Baloney".

No, I said she isn't "played very well" at higher tournaments, which she isn't. If she is, please show me the many tournaments where she's either won or placed well (at higher levels, i.e., her opposition must be higher level players).

So lets all just play as Top/High tier and drop everyone else.
Because Brawl is all about winning and not having fun or finding new things about your character right?
Captain Falcon worst character Fo' Eva!1!1!!

WRONG

You seem to not grasp what character potential is. And if nothing new is found, a character will stay where they are on the tier list unless anything changes for the people directly above or below them. And if nothing is to be found, nothing will be found.

And when discussing theory fighter, we do not assume things will change.

Because some people refuse to accept that and keep on trying.
Please correct me if im wrong but:
Wasn't almost all of high/ top tier at a lower point at once?

No, not really. Well, maybe for, oh, the first 3 weeks of Brawl's lifespan when we hadn't really explored much of Brawl's metagame.

Tip: Do not assume, hallucinate or just drop words and sentences from my posts. Your skewed perception of what I am saying will undoubtedly clash with what I'm actually saying. 99% of what you just claimed I've said I've never ever said (in this thread or even in the immediate present).

I am fully aware that M2K is winning with MK. One player is winning major tournaments with one character.

Of course, that brings M2K into the discussion (as the only authority on winning major tournaments), and he has a lot of interesting opinions about characters and matchups.

And the question would be:
How come Azen can do this, yet no one else can replicate his success? Answer: He's Azen.

Peach has about four 40-60 match ups.
Whatever... I quit ya'll win..

And this matters because?

Im going to go PLAY brawl and get better.
If you would like to PLAY brawl please private message me.
Thanks bye..

Whether or not you become a better player has influence on whether or not Peach is a viable character.

Also, I expect you to at least read this post and concede to having assumed/hallucinated/misread my previous posts since your perception of what I said are ludicrous.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Yay, free post count!

Anyway, I think we proved one thing today. There is only one person who can win a major tournament, and he uses MK, therefore there is only one character who can win a major tournament.

I do not fully agree with the statement I just made, but that seems to be the primary view in this debate.

EDIT: Yuna, you lost me with the point about Azen. If we are talking about which characters can win major tournaments, then the issue is which players can win major tournaments, and what characters these players choose. So first, let us decide who can win a major tournament. Then, we can determine that they can win these tournaments with the characters they have successfully won tounaments with.

 

[SaltyKracka]

I'm going to have to basically agree with Yuna here, but allow me to elaborate.

Firstly, the concept of a graph that shows Character skill vs. Player skill is a viable one, though it would be one hell of a ***** to implement.

Secondly, that is not what Edreeses posted. His graph was basically a glorification of Peach, even with all of his ***-covering later. Excel did not help any with his fanboyish rant about how Peach is such a good character, better than most of the other characters in the game. He was blatantly wrong about this, and has been acting stupid ever since.

 

[Brinzy]

Anyway, I think we proved one thing today. There is only one person who can win a major tournament, and he uses MK, therefore there is only one character who can win a major tournament.

I do not fully agree with the statement I just made, but that seems to be the primary view in this debate.

I think you need a brain transplant.

 

[ExCeL 52]

I'm going to have to basically agree with Yuna here, but allow me to elaborate.

Firstly, the concept of a graph that shows Character skill vs. Player skill is a viable one, though it would be one hell of a ***** to implement.

Secondly, that is not what Edreeses posted. His graph was basically a glorification of Peach, even with all of his ***-covering later. Excel did not help any with his fanboyish rant about how Peach is such a good character, better than most of the other characters in the game. He was blatantly wrong about this, and has been acting stupid ever since.

Yeah... your right.